originally posted by: bigx001
stealth planes should be really easy to find. current radar uses the return from a radar and stealth planes dissipate a large amount so that it looks
like background noise, allowing the plane to get in range with its weapons systems.

but there is a flaw, detection should be possible by looking for the void in returns from a known return, such as rain clouds, a stealth plane should
show up as a void moving across such returns.

that is one of the things haarp was doing altering the upper atmosphere so radar waves would bounce back better from the ionosphere

I think that you need to take your logic to the next step. If stealth is so easy to defeat by your methods, then why haven't our adversaries with
their deep pockets employed your techniques? It's my guess that since the US invented the "practical" use of stealth and is constantly improving
it. Then, you would have to conclude that by the time it is vulnerable to enemy defeat the US would have improved the technology.

The most common mistake made most people, here on ATS, is they assume that military technology is stagnant. By the time we see it here the technology
is many steps down the road.

i didn't say it was stagnate what i said was that haarp also made radar waves bounce better off the ionosphere, and that due to its nature stealth
should present a void in a radar return from a known object. you don't think the military would just sit back and be helpless detecting an
adversary's stealth plane? on the contrary they would have already tested a method of tracking a stealth plane since that technology would not be
limited to the us military and will eventually be obtained by an adversarial force.

it is a good bet that we can track all stealth aircraft, otherwise we would be just as vulnerable once others gain that technology level

Yes, you could try things for finding 'noise anomalies' but it is much less reliable and precise. If you have something coming at you at 1000
km/hr---or 2200 km/hr---and you're in a war, you need some pretty precise identity, type, range, altitude, bearing & speed to counter.

If you don't know what "it" is, how many of "its" there are, whether the "its" are yours or theirs or birds, or rain or anything like that....

sure you may get an idea that Something Wicked This Way Comes, but you could get that from CNN.

more to the point an adversary having stealth would put us in the same boat thus giving them first strike capabilities.

but it is unlikely that would be the case and it is highly likely that besides continuous improvements in stealth we would already have the
capabilities of tracking stealth aircraft, otherwise we would be just as vulnerable to any and all who have such capabilities

edit on
24-7-2014 by bigx001 because: reread what i wrote, edit for better content

originally posted by: bigx001
stealth planes should be really easy to find. current radar uses the return from a radar and stealth planes dissipate a large amount so that it looks
like background noise, allowing the plane to get in range with its weapons systems.

but there is a flaw, detection should be possible by looking for the void in returns from a known return, such as rain clouds, a stealth plane should
show up as a void moving across such returns.

that is one of the things haarp was doing altering the upper atmosphere so radar waves would bounce back better from the ionosphere

I think that you need to take your logic to the next step. If stealth is so easy to defeat by your methods, then why haven't our adversaries with
their deep pockets employed your techniques? It's my guess that since the US invented the "practical" use of stealth and is constantly improving
it. Then, you would have to conclude that by the time it is vulnerable to enemy defeat the US would have improved the technology.

The most common mistake made most people, here on ATS, is they assume that military technology is stagnant. By the time we see it here the technology
is many steps down the road.

i didn't say it was stagnate what i said was that haarp also made radar waves bounce better off the ionosphere, and that due to its nature stealth
should present a void in a radar return from a known object. you don't think the military would just sit back and be helpless detecting an
adversary's stealth plane? on the contrary they would have already tested a method of tracking a stealth plane since that technology would not be
limited to the us military and will eventually be obtained by an adversarial force.

it is a good bet that we can track all stealth aircraft, otherwise we would be just as vulnerable once others gain that technology level

I agree with this a lot. Besides with F-117 for which I don't think they had a way to see stealth aircraft at first, the US most likely has a way of
detecting stealth aircraft. Its no secret we have radar ranges in the NTS and my guess is they were for both testing an aircraft in flight for RCS as
well as a way to counter it

originally posted by: bigx001
stealth planes should be really easy to find. current radar uses the return from a radar and stealth planes dissipate a large amount so that it looks
like background noise, allowing the plane to get in range with its weapons systems.

but there is a flaw, detection should be possible by looking for the void in returns from a known return, such as rain clouds, a stealth plane should
show up as a void moving across such returns.

that is one of the things haarp was doing altering the upper atmosphere so radar waves would bounce back better from the ionosphere

I think that you need to take your logic to the next step. If stealth is so easy to defeat by your methods, then why haven't our adversaries with
their deep pockets employed your techniques? It's my guess that since the US invented the "practical" use of stealth and is constantly improving
it. Then, you would have to conclude that by the time it is vulnerable to enemy defeat the US would have improved the technology.

The most common mistake made most people, here on ATS, is they assume that military technology is stagnant. By the time we see it here the technology
is many steps down the road.

i didn't say it was stagnate what i said was that haarp also made radar waves bounce better off the ionosphere, and that due to its nature stealth
should present a void in a radar return from a known object. you don't think the military would just sit back and be helpless detecting an
adversary's stealth plane? on the contrary they would have already tested a method of tracking a stealth plane since that technology would not be
limited to the us military and will eventually be obtained by an adversarial force.

it is a good bet that we can track all stealth aircraft, otherwise we would be just as vulnerable once others gain that technology level

I agree with this a lot. Besides with F-117 for which I don't think they had a way to see stealth aircraft at first, the US most likely has a way of
detecting stealth aircraft. Its no secret we have radar ranges in the NTS and my guess is they were for both testing an aircraft in flight for RCS as
well as a way to counter it

didn't they have a metal rod, or blade or something that they extended to allow it to be seen on radar so it could be tracked, if they wanted it to.
like say over us territory or on routine training flights ?

Anything sticking out will allow them to be tracked. That's why even the lights were retractable on the F-117. The early days of the F-117 just
about anything messed up the skin, and allowed it to be tracked.

Stealth craft aren't stealth, they just have less echo. In 1999 a F117 was shot down using a 1960's russian Isayev S-125, they just changed
frequency to longer wavelength, and they could see the F117. A $111 million dollar F117 being shot down with a 1960's missile is a bit sad.

Actually, it was shot down just after it dropped its bomb, at its least stealthy point of the mission. It flew in on the same path several nights in
a row, so it was predictable. Long wavelength radar won't give you a firing solution, just tell you something is out there.

Anything sticking out will allow them to be tracked. That's why even the lights were retractable on the F-117. The early days of the F-117 just
about anything messed up the skin, and allowed it to be tracked.

Its just like the "go to war" mode on the B-2. When they push the button to step up the stealth so to speak, all the antenna's retract, as well as
some other systems kick in to increase its stealth...

hey can I read up on the alpha and beta emitters on the plasma stealth thread we have here by inteligurl?

Also, why can't they make a paint that won't allow the current to shred the composit materials the fuselage and wings are made of? Like planes
made of aluminum can be struck by lightening and be just fine. I know newer non metallic materials don't due so well, but why can't they make
something that can do that...Or maybe...

That's why it kills me when people say stealth doesn't work because saw/tracked a stealth aircraft going over heading to an airshow.

Yeah, because it wasn't trying to hide. If it was trying to hide, totally different ballgame there folks.

Yep. That's also why when the B-2 flew just south of North Korea it had a couple F-16s flying in formation with the gear down. Just so those North
Koreans couldn't judge the stealth of the B-2 on radar. But what am I saying, since stealth doesn't work like some people claim, there wouldn't be
a need to fly in formation with them right?

Here's my thoughts on plasma stealth. To me, if this technology exists like some think it does, then it shouldn't matter what the shape or the RCS
of an aircraft is. It would be invisible to radar. Remember back about 20-30 years ago when the soviet union said they perfected a form of plasma
stealth that could be applied to any jet in the inventory? They were claiming that normal non-stealthy bombers utilizing plasma stealth would be
undetectable to radar. So if we are using it, then why do we still feel the need to make our aircraft in VLO shapes Coates with ram?

They could do it as a back up, in case the plasma stealth doesn't work, say your flying over Russia and something goes wrong with your power supply
for the plasma, you'd rather at least have a back up system in place rather getting shot outta the sky.

The plasma is more an aerodynamic thing than stealth coating. It has a secondary feature of making things stealthier but the primary idea is to
increase the "slipperiness" of the air going over the airframe.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.